I remain mystified by the confocal manufacturer's approach to this.  Would
it not ALWAYS be better to have long laser life (don't answer obviously
rhetorical) so isn't there a better way than having the short-lived Kr-Ar
laser, even if it is nifty to use?  So much wasted time and effort
with the KrAr combo ..... using 2 lasers seems better to me, the
long-lived Ar ion for 488/512 and a second long-lived laser (HeNe ?) for
the 543, 633 lines.  At least I'm given to believe they are both
long-lived.

Even though there could be some difficulty with getting the two lasers
aligned, and perhaps with colocalization, it should be a reasonable
and solvable problem for all confocal manufacturers, I would think.
Zeiss did this with one of their scopes; I don't know the success
situation with their scope; I noticed their name mentioned in the last
discussion.  Any comment from Zeiss confocalists withthis combination?

*************************************************************************
*                                                                       *
*       Anthony Moss                    voice  (334)844-9257            *
*       101 Cary Hall                   fax    (334)844-4065            *
*       Zoology and Wildlife Science    email  [log in to unmask]  *
*       Auburn University                                               *
*       Auburn, AL 36849                                                *
*                                                                       *
*************************************************************************